or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › A&S
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A&S - Page 47

post #691 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by whnay. View Post
"I'm too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt, soooo sexy it hurts!"

Don't anger him.




- B
post #692 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Working Stiff View Post
They look all stretched out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
Since it is a frontal view, I don't think that we can see it.
Double eww.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
The idea of you looking like a woman (or vice versa) sends a chilling shiver down my spine
I do tend to have a powerful sexual effect on "straight" men.
post #693 of 1570
Is Sciamat Iammat's new and wonderful brand? Is he targeting elf lords with those shoulders? This brings us back to D&D and clerics....
post #694 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Double eww. I do tend to have a powerful sexual effect on "straight" men.
Well, I think it's fair to say that you do have a powerful effect on men.
post #695 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post


I'm seeing a SF trend, Over 20,000 posts and the patch pockets get more shapely. Under 10,000 the pockets are more squarish, under 1000 they are Christmas ornaments.

My patch pockets are square for I am not worthy.
post #696 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Dude, you constantly criticize others for dressing like old men without being able to articulate your reasons for thinking so, only to post photos of Sciamat suits and jackets that you claim are mana from heaven. You invited the scrutiny.

And if you don't think Sciamat itself has anything to do with all the identically styled photos of its work floating around the internet, I don't even know where to begin.

The snug fit, wide lapels, roped shoulder, curved pockets and waisted silhouette - all of which emphasize the subtle beauty of the male form (no homo?) - are why I think a Sciamat garment is a sexy garment. I've made this abundantly clear.

On the other hand, Foof is the one who alluded to the fact that he has old man style (in his Best Dressed Man post). How can it be criticism if it's a look he's spent tens of thousands of dollars to attain and perfect? Isn't it something, then, that should be celebrated?

Foof reminds me of my wife. I tell her she has a nice ass. She's a marathon runner, so, all of the sudden, she gets self conscious (or just wants to pick a fight, as women are wont to do) and thinks her ass is getting big (or - again - just wants to pick a fight, because she's a woman). "What do you mean I have a nice ass...is it getting big?" No sweetie, it's just shapely. "Shapely? Fuck. Tell Maria to feed the kids...I'm going to spin class."

Women operate like this. They see drama where none exists, they read too much into compliments, they obsess and - sometimes - they just pick fights for their own entertainment (or out of boredom...or who knows why? They're women. Who really understands them?) On them, it's endearing. On Foof, it's tragic.

The thing I find most comical is that, if you comb back through my posts, I have had nothing but nice things to say about Foof (and anyone else). It's the internets, for God's sake - it's quite easy to simply get along with everyone. Yet - as lasbar correctly points out - Foof is itching for drama and attention at every turn, like a gossip girl at an 8th grade dance. I find it entertaining, of course, but I could see how others would find it grating.
post #697 of 1570
Bull, welcome to SF. You may have joined a couple of months ago but now you're really in.
post #698 of 1570
Every time I read about drape in those end- and pointless discussions I get more and more confused.
That is mainly because each and every time the definition of "drape" is changed to excuse either the abundance or the lack of it.

But first:











How come that, when critics claim that there is too much swelling (read: drape) in the chest, the reply is: "I want it that way, it's perfect!"

The same answer the critics get, when they claim there is no drape in the chest!

So what is the proper definition of drape? This one?



I do not see the illusion of muscularity in Manton's coat nor is there any visible vertical fold, neither in the front or the back.

Since I know I won't get a decent answer I'd like to finish with another picture of:







post #699 of 1570
Thread Starter 
The problem with Sciamat, it seems to me, is that they take some of the nice elements of Italian tailoring that are not found in English tailoring and then exaggerate them to the point of caricature. A little roundness, swoop, shape, curvature in pockets, rainfall in the sleeve cap, etc. are all nice and you can't get them on Savile Row. But taken to the extreme that Sciamat does, it no longer looks elegant to me at all.
post #700 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
The problem with Sciamat, it seems to me, is that they take some of the nice elements of Italian tailoring that are not found in English tailoring and then exaggerate them to the point of caricature. A little roundness, swoop, shape, curvature in pockets, rainfall in the sleeve cap, etc. are all nice and you can't get them on Savile Row. But taken to the extreme that Sciamat does, it no longer looks elegant to me at all.

Unless you are in zee clothing bizness. Then its hawt.
post #701 of 1570
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tailorgod View Post
Every time I read about drape in those end- and pointless discussions I get more and more confused.
That is mainly because each and every time the definition of "drape" is changed to excuse either the abundance or the lack of it.

...

How come that, when critics claim that there is too much swelling (read: drape) in the chest, the reply is: "I want it that way, it's perfect!"

The same answer the critics get, when they claim there is no drape in the chest!

...

I do not see the illusion of muscularity in Manton's coat nor is there any visible vertical fold, neither in the front or the back.

Since I know I won't get a decent answer I'd like to finish with another picture of:


Despite the jerky and preemptively defensive way you ask the question, I will attempt to answer.

First I find it funny that you accuse others of doubletalk and contradictioon the subject of drape. What I found in this thread was lots of doubletalk and contradiction from the other side. Some very well known opponents of drape have chimed in to criticize my coat for its lack of drape.

Second, I can clearly see the folds in the chest of my coat, even in the lousy picture. They are even clearer in real life. I agree, the back looks smooth. Funny to hear a drape hater criticize a smooth back. Anyway, the point of back drape is freedom of movement. Since I can move quite freely, I must assume it is there but well incorporated.
post #702 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by tailorgod View Post
Every time I read about drape in those end- and pointless discussions I get more and more confused. That is mainly because each and every time the definition of "drape" is changed to excuse either the abundance or the lack of it. But first: How come that, when critics claim that there is too much swelling (read: drape) in the chest, the reply is: "I want it that way, it's perfect!" The same answer the critics get, when they claim there is no drape in the chest! So what is the proper definition of drape? This one? I do not see the illusion of muscularity in Manton's coat nor is there any visible vertical fold, neither in the front or the back. Since I know I won't get a decent answer I'd like to finish with another picture of:
Yer gorra love the tailorgod approach...
post #703 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Since I can move quite freely, I must assume it is there but well incorporated.

Or that it's absent and unnecessary?

post #704 of 1570
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post
Or that it's absent and unnecessary?


If so, they are geniuses, because other coats I have with no back drape wear tight and I can't move as well.
post #705 of 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
The problem with Sciamat, it seems to me, is that they take some of the nice elements of Italian tailoring that are not found in English tailoring and then exaggerate them to the point of caricature. A little roundness, swoop, shape, curvature in pockets, rainfall in the sleeve cap, etc. are all nice and you can't get them on Savile Row. But taken to the extreme that Sciamat does, it no longer looks elegant to me at all.

it looks good to the fighetti
the magpies
fugly pieces of shit


workmanship is average for bespoke, no better, no worse.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › A&S